Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
parseInt-vs-math.floor
(version: 0)
Check the impact between the two
Comparing performance of:
parseInt vs Math.floor
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
parseInt
parseInt((new Date()).getMinutes()/10.0)
Math.floor
Math.floor((new Date()).getMinutes()/10.0)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
parseInt
Math.floor
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
11 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:139.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/139.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 139 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
parseInt
9253229.0 Ops/sec
Math.floor
8994235.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and analyze the provided benchmark. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents two test cases that compare the performance of two built-in JavaScript functions: `parseInt` and `Math.floor`. Both tests aim to calculate the minutes component of a new Date object divided by 10.0. The main question being answered here is which function is faster. **Options compared:** The two options being compared are: 1. **`parseInt`**: The `parseInt()` function takes a string as an argument and returns its integer value after parsing the string according to a radix (base) number. 2. **`Math.floor`**: The `Math.floor()` function returns the largest (closest to negative infinity) integer less than or equal to the given number. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **`parseInt`**: * Pros: + Can be faster for certain inputs, as it only needs to parse a single value. + May be more intuitive for developers who are familiar with parsing numbers from strings. * Cons: + Requires an explicit radix argument, which can add complexity and error-prone code. + May perform poorly on inputs that require multiple parses (e.g., string concatenation). 2. **`Math.floor`**: * Pros: + Simple and straightforward implementation, making it easier to understand and maintain. + Does not require an explicit radix argument, reducing complexity and potential errors. * Cons: + May be slower for certain inputs due to the need to perform floating-point arithmetic. **Library or special feature:** None of the provided test cases uses any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that both functions rely on JavaScript's built-in support for dates and arithmetic operations. **Special JS feature:** The tests do not use any special JavaScript features beyond the standard `Date` object and basic arithmetic operations. **Other alternatives:** For comparing performance between two functions or methods, other approaches might include: 1. **Benchmarking frameworks**: Tools like Benchmark.js or Microbench can provide more comprehensive benchmarking capabilities, including support for multiple test cases and visualization of results. 2. **Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation**: Some JavaScript engines, like SpiderMonkey in Firefox or V8 in Chrome, use JIT compilation to optimize performance-critical code. Testing the performance of specific functions or methods within these engines can provide more accurate results. In summary, this benchmark provides a simple yet informative comparison between two fundamental JavaScript functions: `parseInt` and `Math.floor`. The choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of your project, including factors like readability, maintainability, and performance optimization.
Related benchmarks:
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs Math.floorfaster test
round vs trunc vs floor vs toFixed vs parseFloat vs parseInt
parseInt-vs-math.floor time
Math.floor Vs parseInt (random and fixed)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?